Brian Allan Ludmer

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the Applicant father sought 37 heads of relief against the Respondent mother.

The court had previously granted the father's motion in part, finding the mother in breach of a prior order and granting some make-up time, while dismissing other requests.

Both parties sought costs on different indemnity bases.

Applying the modern law on costs, the court found that success was fairly evenly divided between the parties.

Despite offers to settle from both sides, neither met the criteria under Rule 18(14) or significantly influenced the decision under Rule 18(16) of the Family Law Rules.

Consequently, the court ordered that there would be no costs awarded to either side, with each party bearing their own expenses.

This endorsement from a settlement conference in a high-conflict family law case primarily addresses parenting issues.

The court vacated the respondent father's scheduled long motion concerning parenting arrangements, citing his non-compliance with procedural rules (failure to serve notice of motion and file a timetable agreement) and the principle of proportionality.

The court emphasized that bringing multiple motions on the same issue in quick succession, especially after a prior interim order, is contrary to the Family Law Rules and the access to justice principles articulated in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The judge also noted the high bar for varying interim parenting orders and the application of issue estoppel.

The case was reluctantly placed on the fall 2022 trial blitz, and any future motions require leave of the court.

Directions were also given for questioning and financial disclosure related to a jointly owned cottage.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal had previously awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent father and the appellant's trial counsel, payable by the appellant mother.

As the parties could not agree on the amounts, the court reviewed submissions and fixed the respondent father's costs at $22,500 and the appellant's trial counsel's costs at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The court rejected the appellant mother's arguments for no costs or nominal costs, finding no circumstances to justify such an award, and noted that her offer to settle on different terms was irrelevant to the costs determination.

The mother appealed an order granting sole custody of the children to the father, which was issued after the trial judge concluded the mother had engaged in parental alienation.

The appeal challenged the finding of parental alienation, the terms of the custody reversal and access restriction, and alleged a lack of fair trial due to ineffective counsel and judicial bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's conclusions on parental alienation, the necessity of the custody order for the children's best interests, and finding no evidence of ineffective counsel or judicial bias.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding parenting time and decision-making for a child.

The applicant and respondent both sought costs.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $83,000, while the applicant sought $7,500.

The court applied Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and difficulty of issues, parties' behaviour, and proportionality.

While the respondent was largely successful on the main issue in the July 2020 motion, the court noted both parties contributed to the acrimony and excessive materials.

The court awarded the respondent $25,000 in all-inclusive costs, significantly less than sought, reflecting the applicant's partial success on an earlier motion and the principle of proportionality.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.

The Applicant and Respondent brought motions and cross-motions concerning interim parenting time and parental decision-making for their two-year-old son.

The Applicant sought sole custody and a restricted parenting schedule for the Respondent, while the Respondent sought equal shared parenting time and joint custody.

The court rejected the Applicant's argument for maintaining the status quo, emphasizing the child's right to maximum contact with both parents.

The court ordered a gradual expansion of the Respondent's parenting time, culminating in a 2-2-3 rotating weekly schedule, and declined to make an order regarding parental decision-making at that interim stage.

The applicant, Robert Robertson, brought a second motion to change his child and spousal support obligations and to rescind over $700,000 in arrears.

The respondent, Karen McKenzie, conceded to a termination of spousal support and an adjustment of child support due to her increased income, but opposed the rescission of arrears and sought to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant.

The court found no material change in the applicant's circumstances since the last order, rejecting his claims of inability to earn imputed income or health issues.

While acknowledging the respondent's increased income as a material change, the court declined to rescind the applicant's arrears, citing his lack of transparency, unwillingness to voluntarily support his children, and history of litigation.

The court also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant but imposed a requirement for leave before bringing future motions to change, to ensure fairness and efficient use of court resources.

The father brought an urgent motion to enforce a child access order, which was subsequently dismissed as moot because access had resumed.

The motion then proceeded on the issue of costs.

The court found that neither party acted entirely reasonably in their communications during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to the escalation of the dispute.

No costs were awarded to either party, and the court encouraged the parties to engage a third-party professional for communication and co-operation.

The applicant brought an urgent motion to have the names of the parties and their daughter identified only by their initials in court endorsements and orders, citing the nature of the applicant's occupation.

The respondent consented to the request.

The court found the request reasonable and granted the order, with no costs awarded.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to enforce a prior parenting order, alleging the respondent mother was withholding their child in breach of the order, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted the urgent motion, emphasizing the need for child-focused behaviour and adherence to public health guidelines.

The court provided specific directions for the teleconference motion, including strict page limits for submissions and argument times, and deemed the directions an immediately operative order.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order due to the respondent mother's consistent failure to facilitate access to their two children.

The court found overwhelming evidence of parental alienation by the mother, concluding that the children were suffering emotional abuse.

Consequently, custody of both children was transferred to the father, reunification therapy was ordered, and child support payments were suspended pending a review of the children's adjustment and the parties' financial situation.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter involving custody of a child.

The respondent father sought costs on a full recovery basis totaling $105,350.14 for the motion to stay, motion to admit fresh evidence, and the appeal.

The appellant mother sought either no costs or a modest award due to her strained financial circumstances, having already been ordered to pay $200,000 in trial costs and earning approximately $40,000 annually.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father in the reduced sum of $40,000, considering the length and complexity of the proceedings, the importance of the issues, proportionality, and the appellant's financial circumstances.

A 14-year-old boy had been systematically alienated from his father by his mother through years of denigration, false allegations, and manipulation.

The trial judge found the mother had engaged in parental alienation and ordered a reversal of custody, placing the child with the father and suspending contact with the mother for six months to allow for reconciliation.

The mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the best interests test, imposing an extreme remedy without expert evidence or therapeutic support, improperly delegating decision-making to therapists, and ordering therapy without the child's consent in violation of the Health Care Consent Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and upholding the trial judge's discretionary decision-making in this difficult family law matter.

This decision addresses two motions within a partition and sale application concerning the distribution of property sale proceeds.

Annette Curtis sought immediate one-third distribution to each party, while Lenn Curtis sought to preserve the funds in trust or court pending an oppression application.

The court found jurisdiction under Rule 66.03.

Lenn Curtis's request was akin to a Mareva injunction, but the court found the test not fully met due to delay and lack of evidence of asset dissipation risk.

However, the court exercised its discretion under the Partition Act, finding that the property issues were intertwined with the ongoing oppression application and that immediate distribution would be oppressive and cause hardship.

Consequently, Annette Curtis's motion for distribution was dismissed, and the funds were ordered to remain in trust or be paid into court, with the application adjourned to be heard with the oppression application.

Ana-Cristina Bors sought to re-open a previous motion to change a final custody and access order, requesting to introduce fresh evidence in the form of children's counselling progress reports.

The court declined to re-open the motion, finding that the proposed evidence was not sufficiently cogent to have changed the original outcome and that the reports were improperly obtained through unilateral action by Ana, undermining a prior court order for joint agreement on counselling.

This endorsement addresses costs following a 35-day trial concerning parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought substantial costs for a contempt motion and financial issues, while the respondent also claimed costs.

The court awarded the applicant $45,000 in full recovery costs for the contempt motion and $10,000 in partial recovery costs for financial issues, both payable by the respondent.

However, no costs were awarded to either party for the parenting issues due to both parties' limited success and unreasonable litigation conduct.

The court also ordered a reapportionment of supervised access fees, to be paid proportionately to income, finding both parents contributed to its necessity.

The respondent mother brought a motion to suspend a final parenting order that mandated equal time-sharing for the parties' eldest child, A.K.H., with the applicant father.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking dismissal and compliance with the existing order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to an altercation between A.K.H. and the father, and A.K.H.'s worsening anxiety and consistent refusal to return to the father's care.

Prioritizing A.K.H.'s best interests and expressed wishes, the court suspended the equal time-sharing order, allowing A.K.H. to choose her residential arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to provide ongoing legal representation for both children.

The Respondent, Keith Carter, was substantially successful in an enforcement motion against the Applicant, Deirdre Michener, regarding compliance with access and communication orders.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The Respondent sought over $50,000 in costs, including his own time as a self-represented litigant and his lawyer's fees.

The court found the Respondent was substantially successful but declined to find bad faith or unreasonable conduct by the Applicant.

The court disallowed the Respondent's claim for costs as a self-represented litigant, as he was represented by counsel under a limited scope retainer, deeming it an impermissible "doubling up" of costs.

The court also found the lawyer's claimed hours (90 hours for a long motion) to be excessive and disproportionate to the complexity of the issues.

The court awarded the Respondent $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

In this costs endorsement following a motion for access and parenting orders, the court found that success was divided between the parties and awarded no costs.

The father sought partial indemnity costs of $27,794.71, alleging bad faith and unreasonable behaviour by the mother.

The mother sought no costs.

The court determined that both parties engaged in unreasonable behaviour leading up to the motion, and that the mother's conduct, while unreasonable, did not rise to the level of bad faith.

The access order granted represented mixed success for both parties, with the father obtaining increased access but not the aggressive restoration of status quo or parenting covenants he sought, while the mother was ordered to equally share therapeutic costs.